Doc7505
Diamond Member
- Feb 16, 2016
- 15,724
- 27,697
- 2,430
$50 Trillion For What? Kennedy Dumbfounds Biden Climate Peddler In Fiery Exchange Over ‘Carbon Neutrality’
$50 Trillion For What? Kennedy Dumbfounds Biden Climate Peddler In Fiery Exchange Over ‘Carbon Neutrality’
$50 Trillion For What? Kennedy Dumbfounds Biden Climate Peddler In Fiery Exchange Over 'Carbon Neutrality' <div property="schema:text" class="clearf
nationandstate.com
In a tense exchange, Kennedy repeatedly attempted to get Turk to give a straightforward answer to just how much American taxpayers will have to pay to achieve the Biden administration’s goal of reaching US carbon neutrality by 2050.
When Kennedy asked whether some of the “experts” Turk referred to earlier were correct in a $50 trillion estimate, Turk nodded his head, and said “It’s gonna cost trillions of dollars, there’s no doubt about it.”
“If we spend $50 trillion to become carbon neutral by 2050 in the United States of America, how much is that going to reduce world temperatures?” Kennedy replied. The conversation continued (transcription via the Daily Caller)
Turk: “So, every country around the world needs to get its act together. Our emissions are about 13% of global emissions right now…”
Kennedy: “Yeah, but if you could answer my question. If we spend $50 trillion to become carbon neutral in the U.S. by 2050, you’re the Deputy Secretary of Energy, give me your estimate of how much that is going to reduce world temperatures.”
Commentary:
This is evil and designed to do one thing.
Bankrupt every western nation and collapse their economies so that it can be “built back better”
You don’t hear about China, India, or Russia, or any of the other big polluters “doing their part” in this global warming, climate change ponsi scheme.
You’d think we would have learned from the last climate emergency, you remember, global cooling and the coming ice age.
There is no evidence that atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide is a forcing agent in climate change.
People can rant all day about being “carbon neutral”; variations in global climate have nothing to do with carbon dioxide.
The question is
1) at what point are these efforts incrementally self-defeating (given that some products that we need do have environmental impacts), and
2) at what point does the failure of their advocates to enforce these measures against the third world (aka China) as opposed to the first world (US and Europe) become evidence of the real political (as opposed to environmental) motives of the exercise?
Meanwhile, China starts building 5 new coal-fired electric generation plants each day.